Labour's honeymoon in Liverpool comes to an end over social care shake-up
The honeymoon enjoyed by the Labour party in Liverpool is probably going to start coming to an end today after a huge shake-up of social services was announced.
Nine out of 12 day centres are set to close, and the three remaining will be refurbished as super community hubs.
There will also be changes to care homes, which will become rehab centres for people leaving hospital.
And the way people with "moderate" needs are assessed will also change.
Click HERE for the full story.
Demographics and the way people want to be cared for is changing, and so must services say the party.
The proposals will go out to consultation and would be phased in over three years.
The truth is that things cannot go on as they are. Most of the day centres are half empty, and when people are given personal budgets they chose to buy services from other places.
Add to that a projected overspend of ã7.5m this year and a tightening on local government finance and it is easy to see a perfect storm erupting.
But the changes will not be popular with many service users and their families who depend on services and have grown used to them.
Labour say this represents a good vision for the future that is sustainable and will be able to cater for more people in the long run.
The new system would free up ã9m that will then be ploughed back into making services better - new day centres open 12 hours a day, for example.
The Liberal Democrat opposition says now is not the time to be doing this and people need confidence and certainty. The party will fight the cuts. This is an emotive issue and it may not be pretty.
Politically though there is no better time than just after a party has been elected to introduce sweeping changes to a decades old system.
Upon becoming leader of the council Joe Anderson said his party would not shirk from making tough decisions. Here is the first example.
14 Comments
Leave a comment
Dale Street Associates
David Bartlett
City editor of the Post and Echo covering politics, regeneration, and urban affairs.
Read My Posts »
The story in the Echo today carries an inacuracy. The Alderwood Centre, proposed as a HUB, is not in Speke, it is shown in the cabinet meeting papers as in Cressington/Allerton Hunts Cross.
In fact the proposed removal of the Speke resource centre provision would mean no provision in the largest, and very deprived, ward of Speke Garston.
Perhaps this area is now being targeted for cuts.
i await the speke councillors campaign on this.
So when LibDem cllrs say "now is not the time to be doing this and people need confidence and certainty", I presume they also think that the rise in VAT to 20% - something they were universally campaigning against 6 weeks ago is also inappropriate.
And how do they feel about the cut in Housing Benefit to ã400 month, you might be able to find something to rent in the hinterland towns like St Helens (although I confess I have not checked) but in my ward of Kensington and Fairfield in Liverpool you could not even get a 3-bed red brick ordinary terraced house in one of the most deprived wards in the country for that amount.
I expect the number of homeless people in my ward to grow exponentially. Perhaps I should them to advice surgeries in Sheffield Hallam so that Nick Clegg can deal with them instead?
I will be happy to engage in debate with any LibDem councillor who voted against the closure of Boaler Street Rehab Unit in Kensington on this issue, but don't expect a long queue, there were precisely NONE of them.
Don't blame me, I voted Labour
Ignore all the stuff about Housing Benefit, I am happy to admit that I got that wrong. I have rechecked and it is ã400 per week for a big house, not ã400 per week for a little one. Thank God and all that
I apologise with good grace.
All the other stuff is right though!
David 'I'm gutted Eldridge lost' Bartlett finds a totally original anti-Lab angle on this one, I see...!!!
Ah ! Labour - protectors of the poor and needy, I don't think !
So Louise you haven't actually got anything to say about day centre closures then? 3 in 4 to face the axe! But instead you try and turn this into a story about housing benefit.
You had the good grace to apologise and all that, so how about having the good grace to stick to the subject?
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the comment. I'm surprised at both elements of your comment. I have never expressed support for Colin Eldridge and as a journalist with no political affiliations frankly I was not concerned with the result of Wavertree, which ever way it went. I am sure that Luciana Berger will make a very good MP for Wavertree. Secondly, I'm surprised that you think this blogpost is anti-Labour. If anything I have presented the facts of why social care reform is needed, but pointed out that the proposals will be unpopular with many. I ended by saying that Joe Anderson is not shirking from making a tough decision - hardly anti-Labour.
I was referring more to the 'Labour honeymoon' bit Dave. What Labour honeymoon? Is that an application of a banal political cliche? Or do you have specific things in mind that Labour in Liverpool has got away with that it mightn't have done if it had been in power for a few years?
The element of this story which has gone vastly under reported is that the previous administration managed to leave a massive over spend.
How about this for a story Dave: "Lib Dems shaft Liverpool locally, leaving social care budgets hugely over spent, and the city economy in tatters... And then Lib Dems shaft Liverpool nationally, slashing millions from the Area Based Grant, millions more from other government funding streams, and to top it all off, imposing a freeze on council tax which means we can't even raise any cash ourselves to help fund our own local services!"
Somehow, I don't think that is a story likely to find its way into your reporting.
Thanks JT
I shall try to contribute something thoughtful to the discussion about the closure of day centres.
I will begin by pointing out that need drives supply. And if most day centres are already operating at about half of their capcacity because people have stopped going there, then clearly we need to rationalise them.
If people have found a better way to spend their day times and have been provided (by a Labour Government) with the funds to pay for those alternative activities, then it is only wise to reflect that. This is the personalisation agenda. This is giving each individual the choice, this ought to be a very Liberal Democrat supporting activity and indeed they have never raised a single or collective voice against this since it was introduced and they happily made the relevant changes when they were in power, without a murmur.
Of course it is going to be disappointing for the people who go to the Fairfield Centre if it is closed, but I am satisfied that Lime Court in Kensington, a mere third of a mile away, will prove a more modern facility and they will enjoy it there. The Fairfield Centre is an old former school, some of which was converted for day care use, but then a lot of the space was taken away by the LibDems when they were running LCC, despite my vehement opposition, 4 years ago. So what is left is very bare, it is essentially an old school canteen. Lime Court is very different.
Labour has said that every user will be found a place in one of the new centres if they want to keep up their usage of day centres and that staff loss, 10% through what I shall call "natural wastage", eg retirement, resignation, will be achievable over the three years.
I hope this helps.
PS It is still nothing like the heartache caused by closing people's actual homes, two years ago by the LibDems.
Well, well, well ! Cllr Baldock backs closure of the Fairfield Centre. Can't see that, or her so-called justification for it, going down too well in the ward !
Why not Mrs Smith - its perfectly logical and coherent reasoning with common financial sense - we dont lessons from Liberals whos party is about to hammer public spending across the country, and given Councillor Baldocks recent return to office with a thumping majority id say you know very little about how the good people of K and F view their longest serving councillor.
as the famous elegy from Thomas Gray said " Where ignorance is bliss tis folly to be wise"- most appropriate in your presumptious blusterings
It would be nice if people like Mrs. Smith thought that the Council schould provide about what people actually want- not what she presumes....and not be led by her emotions (or should that be political desire to cause emotionsl not rational thinking?)
Its noteworthy that the word 'quality' is not used, and the QUALITY of provision is essential. Why expect anyone to put up with inferior provision??? How patronising is that! What would YOU prefer when its your turn? inadequate half empty, cold and sad surroundings or a choice of something YOU liked- not what some lib.dem thought you would like?? Go and look for yourself before assuming what other people want.
Have a look at some of the day care provision under the Lib dems- and weep.
The Lib dem/Tory coalition is NOT going to integrate health and social care- so the opportunity to get even better overall care for our most vunerable and aging population is made very very much harder from now on.
I don't seem to recall Labour saying similar things about Boaler St !
No, it's Labour hypocrisy. You can't trust them. They wrecked the economy and brought down most of today's ills on us all. Gordon Brown should be tried for treason !
The quickest and the easiest resolution for students' essays writing troubles seems to be academic writing corporations. Obviously even university students who have experience in essays writing, order custom essay. Teherefore, we can make a conclusion that term papers writing firms are respected!